anyone else playing a 2.3 development build?

[homunculus]

i hope i was clearly being a bit sarcastic about the points why the game is not playable, as i expect those features might not change in any near future.
at least i don't really expect them to be changed in 2.3 release, and i don't like non-oo programming myself, even if the devs liked what i think.
as for me, a suitable contribution might be just to try to translate the e-mails by dr. connor, as i think i have some, however remote, relations to chemistry and biology.
and translating those e-mails won't change a thing in those matters, except for my own satisfaction and a faint hope the next version might be released some day.

i hope i made it clear now, if it wasn't clear enough already.
i wasn't seriously talking about playability of the dev version.

btw maybe a forum section where random people can post their uncensored opinions and brainstorming ideas would not be a 'bad thing'?
i mean, something that the mods would not read so seriously.
atm i can't help feeling like even the posts in discussion are being judged as if they were considered to be some kind of dramatic contributions to development.
maybe some random less censored chatting could generate some useful ideas in the end?
bad idea?

[keybounce]

2.2.1 is a ((stable)) beta. There is no real 2.3 ATM.

Then perhaps we should call it 2.2.9 or something like that?

Point is, the time gap between 2.2.1 and 2.3 is huge. The feature gap between 2.2.1 and 2.3 is huge. There has been a lot of work on 2.3, and playable but buggy releases are being released for people to play with.

Heck, as pointed out, the Wiki documents 2.3 more than it documents 2.2.1. Some of the developers have been working on 2.3 for so long that they cannot answer questions about 2.2.1. Bug reports based on 2.2.1 are so out of date that they are of no use anymore.

As much as 2.2.1 is the current released beta, and 2.3 2.2.9 is alpha, everything I've read on these forums in the last few days indicated that 2.2.9 is currently at least as good as 2.2.1. So people want to play it, and have questions about it.

Now, are you really going to say that with the wiki describing 2.3, the developers talking about 2.3, bug reports only being useful if they are 2.3, and more features in 2.3, that we cannot talk about playing 2.3 on the forums?

[BTAxis]

It's just that 2.3 is long overdue. We've been trying to get into a release trajectory, but a few big issues must be resolved first, and there's no telling when that will happen.

And calling it 2.2.9 is wrong. That suggests it's compatible with the 2.2.x series in terms of multiplayer and savegames, and it isn't.

[keybounce]

Fair enough. GCC had that ".9" numbering on a not-quite-ready-but-not-really-compatible release recently.

So this is 2.3.-1 then, right? :-)

[geever]

And what if the final 2.3 will not be compatible with the current? Call it simply trunk and mention the revision.

-geever